Opinion
December 2, 1976.
PRESENT: Bevilacqua, C.J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.
1. DIRECTED VERDICT. Negligence. Constructive Notice of Danger. Factual Questions for Jury. It was not error to deny defendant's motion for a directed verdict where a plaintiff slipped on applesauce in store aisle which was "dusty or maybe dirty looking" and there was no broken pieces of glass in the area where jars were on display. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, reasonably yielded to the inference that the condition had existed for a sufficient time to charge constructive notice of its existence, hence a jury question.
2. NEGLIGENCE. Injury to Customer. Duty to Warn of Dangerous Condition. Where customer slipped on applesauce in aisle of store and, if constructive notice prevailed, defendant was dutybound either to remedy the danger thereby created or to warn of the presence of that danger.
CIVIL ACTION to recover damages for injuries suffered by a plaintiff who slipped and fell in aisle of store, before Supreme Court on appeal from denial by Cochran, J. of Superior Court of defendant's motion for a directed verdict, heard and appeal denied and dismissed, and case remitted to Superior Court for further proceedings.
John F. McBurney, for plaintiffs.
Higgins, Cavanagh Cooney, Joseph V. Cavanagh, for defendant.
[1,2] A husband and wife brought this civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered when the wife slipped and fell while walking in an aisle of the defendant's supermarket where jars of applesauce and other preserved fruits were on display. The foreign substance on which she slipped was identified as applesauce; it was described as "dusty or maybe dirty looking"; and there was testimony that there were no broken pieces of glass in the area where the fall occurred. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, reasonably yields to the inference that the condition of the floor responsible for the incident had existed for a sufficient length of time to charge the defendant with constructive notice of its existence. Under these circumstances, the defendant was dutybound either to remedy the danger thereby created or to warn the plaintiff-wife, a customer, of the presence of that danger. It did neither. Hence, contrary to the only contention urged by the defendant in this court, a jury could reasonably find that it was negligent. Consequently, it was not error for the trial justice to deny the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Gonsalves v. First Nat'l Stores, Inc., 111 R.I. 438, 304 A.2d 44 (1973); Priestley v. First Nat'l Stores, Inc., 95 R.I. 212, 186 A.2d 334 (1962).
The defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.